[...] There you will find 71375 more Infos: jonnynexus.com/work/other/the-ghostwriter/ [...]…

[...] Informations on that Topic: jonnynexus.com/faq/ [...]…

[...] Informations on that Topic: jonnynexus.com/forums/ [...]…

[...] Find More Informations here: jonnynexus.com/forums/ [...]…

[...] There you will find 69632 more Infos: jonnynexus.com/videos/ [...]…

I think it’s not an either/or issue. Some people use only Facebook and some use only Twitter. So if you want to get to *all* of those people you need to be using *both* platforms. So I have a Facebook page and a Twitter account.

But because life is short, and because I personally enjoy Twitter more, I’ve set it up so that I can put things in an tweets and then have them come out on the Facebook page. Although I do sometimes try to take the extra effort to do something as a dedicated Facebook past (things like blog entries and so on).

Hopefully, that’s a reasonable medium.

Firstly, thanks for the reply.

It’s interesting that you tracked him down! It was because this was a bit of a snarky, pointing at a car-crash type of post (perhaps too snarky, in hindsight), that I tried to mask his details. But I realised a little later on that I’d left a “loophole”. Not that it matters, and it’s interesting to here your thoughts having “drilled down” further, which is something I’d neglected to do.

I think I’d half agree with what you’re saying, or perhaps agree, but with a twist.

My thoughts are that it’s fine to do things that you think might help you market a book, but you should only do them if you would have enjoyed doing them anyway. If you do something *purely* to market your book, then it’s quite likely doomed to failure, as you’ll probably come across as false.

So I blog and tweet primarily because I enjoy them. I was very much into LiveJournal way before I even thought of writing a book. If I wasn’t trying to become a writer, I’d still blog and tweet. Equally, I go to science-fiction conventions because I enjoy them. I might, while there, have half an eye for networking, but I’m there because I enjoy it and I only do things that I want to do.

I think the problem with saying that a writer should just write is that more and more, the business of letting readers know that the book exists is left to the writer. This is the case not just with self-published authors, but with authors published by big established publishing houses also. (I’ve heard publishers say that whilst they won’t ever take on a bad book simply because the author is good at self-promotion, an author’s ability to self-promote might be a deciding factor as to whether or not they take on a good book).

And finally, yes, word-of-mouth recommendation is the best promotion there is. But in your case it might be that if you follow your chain back, through the friends that recommended Game Night to you, to the friends that recommended it to them, you might perhaps find someone who only found out about it because I tweeted or blogged something?

Finally, thank you very much for saying you liked Game Night and that you’re looking forward to the next novel. That is really cool to hear.

And I hope I haven’t come across as too snarky!

A lot of writers, particularly of an older generation (his bio claims he was born 1 March 1962) don’t find the principles of using social networks to be “pretty basic”. And many writers would prefer that people buy their work because it is good, not because they are “friends” on the latest social media.

Another, different approach to marketing books is this: readers who enjoy your book really want is another book. So, rather than ‘blogging, or tweeting, or whatever social media is fashionable, what a writer should really do is write.

Not just my opinion:-
http://kriswrites.com/2012/01/25/the-business-rusch-readers/

I enjoyed “Game Night”, and I’m looking forward to seeing your new novel. I didn’t buy “Game Night” because I knew you (I’ve met you about three times, at conventions) but because gaming friends said it was good.

I will still be looking out for it even if you don’t tweet again until you announce it.

“I don’t know whether the cross-gendered Gopher Parents is actually a tradition. In fact, it isn’t: I’ve just checked through my old emails and found out that I was supposed to be Gopher Dad. But I’m a contrary cuss, and taking the Gopher Mum badge first meant I could step back and worry about the well being of our little gophers, while Gopher Dad was the disciplinarian. And it turned out at the ceilidh that she leads when dancing, so that was the right choice”

And:

“We cannot do without gophers, and as you say it is a great way to get involved. I did not realise that next year I appear to be shifting genders. Oh well. See you in Bradford.”

And:

“@wimble: I’m pretty sure when I first gophered (Eastercon 2008 “Orbital”), M. was “Gopher Mum” back then too. So perhaps it’s not so much a tradition rather than an in-joke…”

Well I’m now not quite sure if in my post I’m reporting on a tradition or in danger of starting one, but I guess traditions often start by accident and then get “set” by mistake, so in this case, I’m more than happy to be the accidental recorder of one, if that makes sense.